»» Columnists

Bernie Goldberg Tells Bill O’Reilly Why Liberals Like The “Ground Zero Mosque”

video

by Jon Bershad | 7:30 am, September 14th, 2010

» 83 comments

Tonight on The Factor, Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg used Goldberg’s segment to discuss a number of topics relating to the proposed Islamic community center and the (liberal) media’s relation to it. The jumping off point was the revelation in the New York Post that Faiz Khan, an associate of Imam Rauf’s is a 9/11 Truther, something that O’Reilly likened to President Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright. O’Reilly and Goldberg took guesses as to whether the evil Mainstream Media would cover it and then continued from there until Goldberg gave a lengthy explanation as to why he thinks liberals like the mosque.

The moment came when O’Reilly asked Goldberg why the left-wing media wanted the mosque to be built. Goldberg’s answer basically worked as his summary of all liberals anywhere:

“I think it’s because one of the most fundamental delusions of liberalism- whether it’s the people in the media or out of the media because there’s no difference. Liberals in the media are the same as liberals outside of the media. One of their fundamental delusions is that they have a monopoly on compassion and taking this side of this issue enables them to show how compassionate they are because they are sticking up for ‘oppressed’ – and I am putting that word in gigantic quotation marks – American Muslims. It makes them feel, once again, that they are looking out for the underdogs. And all of this, whether it’s Affirmative Action or a dozen other issues, mostly makes them feel better about themselves. And the icing on the cake is that many prominent conservatives are against the mosque in that location. And now they can say, ‘You see? We’re the good ones. We’re always the good ones, y’know. And they’re the haters and the bigots and the ignorant people.”

Helpful tip, change a few words in that quote and it works as a perfect argument for why you should never want to help anyone ever.

It was an interesting conversation and O’Reilly made sure to warn the MSM that tomorrow’s show will feature a rundown of who covers the Khan story and who doesn’t. I guess we’ll have to wait to find out the results.

9/11 Truthers, Bernie Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, Faiz Khan, Ground Zero Mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Imam Rauf, Mosques, The O'Reilly Factor

xunxun8

bZBBB)v@xc(c
Some_Dude

You may want to invest in some spam control, Mediaite. Sorry for the off topic comment.
Alz

The reason Liberals are for the Victory Mosque is simple. They are for anything that works to tear down success. Since the US, Western Civilization, Christianity are generally successful, the Modern Liberals/Progressives must attack it.

It never crosses the Modern Liberal mind that their attacks on, say Christmas nativity scenese, while demanding a mosque of sacred ground would be considered inconsistent.

The issue is how the Modern Liberal belief system works. They have to tear down everything that is good, right and successful while elevating everything that is evil, failed and wrong so as to force everything to be “equal”. If everything was “equal”, they think all of our societal problems will go away. This is how liberals actually think that their ideas help people.

Watch the talk “How Modern Liberals Think” by Evan Sayet. Evan used to write for Bill Maher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
sarainitaly

Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions.

Liberals constantly attack Conservatives, flinging accusations in all of those areas, yet, they defend Muslims….
BatBoy

sarainitaly said:
Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions. Liberals constantly attack Conservatives, flinging accusations in all of those areas, yet, they defend Muslims….

You are so right on this Sara!

I wished I had an answer…I just don’t think they have thought this through. In many cases, these same people would be the targets!
Big Eddie

Truth is only path out of tangled web .
moriarty70

The fact that there’s a Truther in his camp is not a big story. There’s Truther’s in every walk of life. Hell I’ve got a couple of friends that believe it might have been or in fact was an inside job. It’s a foolish concept, just like the faked moon landing belief or the second shooter.
Alz

BatBoy said:
You are so right on this Sara! I wished I had an answer…I just don’t think they have thought this through. In many cases, these same people would be the targets!

Watch the video I mentioned a few posts up. You’ll see why the Left is bending over backwards for the Muslims.
http://gordonbloyershow.com gordonbloyershow

The libs just hate it when they are exposed.
Jon exposes himself almost daily.
sarainitaly

This sums it up…
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/21079
MichelleF

Jon, You one of the best on this site, but with this statement, you’re starting to sound like Glynnis or Colby:

Helpful tip, change a few words in that quote and it works as a perfect argument for why you should never want to help anyone ever.

Great analysis, as usual, Bernie!
MichelleF

Awesome and dead on Sara!
m

>Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions.

Uh, we also defend conservatives who have the exact damn same authoritarian beliefs about women, homosexuals and tolerance towards other religions. There’s a reason why conservatives are referred to as the American Taliban.
MichelleF

M

There’s a reason why conservatives are referred to as the American Taliban.

Way to out yourself as a Daily Kos Kook!! Marcos, is that you!
VRWC Destruction Machine

moriarty70 said:
The fact that there’s a Truther in his camp is not a big story. There’s Truther’s in every walk of life. Hell I’ve got a couple of friends that believe it might have been or in fact was an inside job. It’s a foolish concept, just like the faked moon landing belief or the second shooter.

Rauf’s “Truther” partner is a minute piece of the puzzle. Mosque supporters grasp on to this small piece because it is easier than to analyze the whole story. A Truther can be written off as a fringe kook, but it is harder to explain away Rauf’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It’s just like the left’s only argument against Newt Gingrich was his Kenyan commment. Other than that, the MSM ignores everything else he says.

Bernie Goldberg’s analysis goes beyond Obama’s “Truther” friend. Rauf is nothing more than an Islamic Community Organizer. Look where that got us when the US elected a Community Organizer as President.
Cancon1

This surprises anyone? Bernie is bang on here. God, I can’t stand the self righteous garbage that some Liberals spew, like they are ordained to own compassion and goodness and sympathy. A simple product of a self loathing and shame. It is all so predictable.

Helpful tip, change a few words in that quote and it works as a perfect argument for why you should never want to help anyone ever.

Here’s a helpful tip you predictable hack, a quick one liner that paints this philosophy and reading of Liberals does not translate into, not helping anyone anywhere anytime… Trying to twist it into a projection of your own bias of anyone that doesn’t fall lock step into your worldview with this kind of childish equivalency is predictable. I can almost see the author reading and listening to Bernie here and, knowing that it hits a true nerve, needs to somehow lash out. But how? How to does he do it? Oh yes, project words that are not there, never uttered, nor implied and get his little paranoid dig into the story.

Pathetic.
moriarty70

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Rauf’s “Truther” partner is a minute piece of the puzzle. Mosque supporters grasp on to this small piece because it is easier than to analyze the whole story. A Truther can be written off as a fringe kook, but it is harder to explain away Rauf’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It’s just like the left’s only argument against Newt Gingrich was his Kenyan commment. Other than that, the MSM ignores everything else he says. Bernie Goldberg’s analysis goes beyond Obama’s “Truther” friend. Rauf is nothing more than an Islamic Community Organizer. Look where that got us when the US elected a Community Organizer as President.

I agree that the Truther argument is a small item, but they’re pushing it ahead by daring the otehr networks to cover it and give it legs. As for the violent organizations, he’s come out and said that he is against anyone who uses violence to make their point so that’s dealt with.

And if Rauf is just a community organizer, wouldn’t that be the right person to organize his community with a community center? It’s the core part of the job title, he’s not trying to run a country. That just comes across as an unrelated dig.
http://www.libertarianism.com/ Burnnotice

sarainitaly said:
Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions.

Liberals constantly attack Conservatives, flinging accusations in all of those areas, yet, they defend Muslims….

Yep i am very close friends of some Conservatives who have a gay daughter. They accept her and have never tried to changer her. The Catholic church they attend says nothing to them about it or condemns them. Also the women are very vocal about politics and religion in this family. Do you think the Muslims would allow any of this? Say this was a Liberal family. Would that make a difference to the Muslims?.
writer

Sara made a good point. While the left will fire away at any Christian church for being against homosexuality, they seem not to notice that Muslims are vehemently against it.
Alz

Burnnotice said:
Yep i am very close friends of some Conservatives who have a gay daughter. They accept her and have never tried to changer her. The Catholic church they attend says nothing to them about it or condemns them. Also the women are very vocal about politics and religion in this family. Do you think the Muslims would allow any of this? Say this was a Liberal family. Would that make a difference to the Muslims?.

Exactly. What you are pointing out is how tolerant the Conservatives are. The Left doesn’t tolerate dissent and neither do the Muslims.

If the Right was so intolerant, they would have destroyed the Liberals in the 60′s.

Everything is Orwellian when talking about Liberals.
Alz

writer said:
Sara made a good point. While the left will fire away at any Christian church for being against homosexuality, they seem not to notice that Muslims are vehemently against it.

It’s the same with the NOW groups. You’d think they would be protesting the Muslims – but both groups are silent.

The reason is botyh groups are really run by Liberals. It’s the same for the nvironmnetal groups. The stated purpose of each groupis really a cover for their real intentions – Socialism and control.
freddiejg

sarainitaly says:

Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions.

Hey sarainitaly….
we are not defending the religion of Islam or muslims….only their RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. JUST LIKE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOURS…WHATEVER THAT IS. Can you not see the difference???
niniqw12

My friends told me about — B l a c k w h i t eC upid . C’ 0- M —–told It’s the best place to meet black white singles. Come in and stay a while. Complete your profile. Post a message, a picture of yourself and check out the photo galleries.

Give it a try, you will find someone you like here… ;)
@@@@
writer

They all have a right to practice their religion. And all religions have some rules that don’t make sense. But while the left will repeatedly and laughingly point out intolerance in Christianity, they seem to give Islam the kid glove treatment, and it’s perhaps the most intolerant of all the religions.
The_Reasonable_Lib

Bernie Goldberg, will your wisdom never cease? The wisdom which showed us ALL how Ludacris and Eminem are destroying America with their “gangster rap”!
freddiejg

writer says:
They all have a right to practice their religion. And all religions have some rules that don’t make sense. But while the left will repeatedly and laughingly point out intolerance in Christianity, they seem to give Islam the kid glove treatment, and it’s perhaps the most intolerant of all the religions.

All religions have their own belief system..whatever gets you into heaven. People EVERYWHERE are intolerant of certain aspects of ALL RELIGIONS. The left no more handles Islam with kid gloves than you handle Scientology with respect. We are just saying that EVERYONE BELIEVES SOMETHING. They have the right to do that here in America. And if you read anything about Islam you will see it is very similar to Christianity. it is the radical element that you are talking about that is so intolerant.
redwriteblue

The Liberal Media does not approve of Americans expressing their concerns about the “Community Center of Death” (as Jon Stewart calls-it) because their writers have forgotten that the September 11 terrorists met at mosques when coordinating their plans for the airliner hijackings.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg makes eloquent speeches about the American “Freedom of Religion” while spending $25 million for cameras to keep an-eye on those New York City residents after they leave the mosques because a siginificant percentage of them have the desisre to inflict mass casualities on New Yorkers out for a Saturday night in Times Square, Click Link:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/palestinians-have-missle
MrAut

Goldberg is a windbag. Try this for balance: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/this-is-how-the-media-wor_n_712229.html
writer

fred, it’s not just the radical Muslims that are against homosexuality, for one example. That’s mainstream. But while far lefties such as Olbermann will gladly point out that Christianity is against homosexuality, you never hear him mention that Muslims are also against it. Just slipped his mind, I suppose?
roxsteady

Actually, Keith Olbermann pointed out last night that there was a Mosque in the North Tower of the World Trade Center and a Prayer Area in the South Tower on the 106th floor. That one was set up for Muslims who worked at the Windows on The World Restaurant. Did any of you know that? I walked through the North Tower ever day for several years and even I didn’t know that. Just one more thing you won’t hear from fox news. They either don’t know or don’t care. I wonder why the rest of the media has ignored this?
RichS

m said:
>Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions. Uh, we also defend conservatives who have the exact damn same authoritarian beliefs about women, homosexuals and tolerance towards other religions. There’s a reason why conservatives are referred to as the American Taliban.

Please show how conservatives have the exact damn same authoritarian beliefs as muslims on these subjects. Use a Muslim country under Sharia Law as your example.

If you don’t then have the balls to admit that you were just blowing smoke and don’t know what you were talking about.
Mr.Papshmer

I disagree with Goldberg, I believe that the reason that liberals love muslims and their mosque, is that liberals have always been against what they consider “The Establishment”, and white Christians, of whom the majority is against the mosque, are currently seen as The Establishment. Therefore, in order to be against (read: piss off) white Christians, liberals need to embrace islam. Ironic, since islam is the antithesis of tolerance and benevolence.
MichelleF

writer says:
fred, it’s not just the radical Muslims that are against homosexuality, for one example. That’s mainstream. But while far lefties such as Olbermann will gladly point out that Christianity is against homosexuality, you never hear him mention that Muslims are also against it. Just slipped his mind, I suppose?

Kind of like Obama being opposed to Gay marriage, yet I don’t recall him being called a bigot.
notsofast

So true.

Everyone is a victim in the lib world and it takes lily livered libs to save them.
mibwilso

notsofast says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:52 pm (Quote)
0 0
So true.

Everyone is a victim in the lib world and it takes lily livered libs to save them.

________________

What a joke. The right has cornered the market on being “victims”.

Someone is always out to get them. One day it’s the media, next it’s the muslims, the feminists, the gays….you name it.

Someone’s always “persecuting” the conservatives.

The act as though they’re an oppressed minority and then simultaneously claim to represent the majority of America. Which is it?
notsofast

mibwilso said:
What a joke. The right has cornered the market on being “victims”.

Wrong, libby!

anytime someone disagrees with libs, they are racists, bigots, or Islamophobes.

Grow up- stop making people victims!
mibwilso

Hey Conservatives–

You can’t simultaneously be a “victim” and then claim that you represent the majority of Americans at the same time.

Someone’s always out to get you, right? Those mean ol’ libruls.
notsofast

mibwilso said:
You can’t simultaneously be a “victim” and then claim that you represent the majority of Americans at the same time.

Show where conservatives have said they are victims.
mibwilso

I think it’s more telling that conservatives like Bernie Goldberg view compassionate as a pejorative term.

The fact of the matter is that the same Constitution that gives people the right to own guns and have free speech ALSO give people the right to worship as they choose.

If conservatives were really serious about upholding the constitution, this would be a no-brainer.

As a liberal myself (and proudly so), I have many issues with both conservative Islam and consevative Christianity.

But as a defender of pluralism, I will defend the rights of both Muslims and Christians to worhship and speak in whatever ways they wish.
The_Reasonable_Lib

notsofast said:
Show where conservatives have said they are victims.

EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CRITICIZES PALIN OR BECK!!!!!!!!!! This bias media crap as well. But in your view you’re not playing the victim.
bugspot1

Burnnotice said:
Yep i am very close friends of some Conservatives who have a gay daughter. They accept her and have never tried to changer her

Burnnotice says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:56 am Burnnotice(Quote)
Kitsune said:
GM : “What connects Rachel Maddow and Lady Gaga?”
A : Rumors that both of them once had a penis?
Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha.. I wish I came up with that one. I’ll just have to settle with they both make my stomach crawl….

tell her the jokes, or just make your stomach crawl?

Hypocrite
mibwilso

Not-so-fast—

Conservative always blame the media for their problems. Conservatives constantly rail about the media, or about being taken “out of context”….or about how they’re misrepresented.

If you watch Fox News, as another example, you see a lot of stories about how Christianity is being attacked or discriminated against.

And conservatives politicians constantly use rhetoric about how “their” country is being “taken away from them”.

Sounds like they feel like victims to me.,
notsofast

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CRITICIZES PALIN OR BECK!!!!!!!!!! This bias media crap as well. But in your view you’re not playing the victim.

Wrong!

Who said “they will tell ya he doesn’t look like the guys on the dollar bills?”

Who compared the people at town hall meetings to Nazis?

Who said if you are for Prop 8, you are homophobic?

Who said GB’s 8/28 meeting was a bunch of racists?

Who said if you are against the Mosque, you are Islamophobic?

Libs, libs, libs!
mibwilso

The other classic Conservative tactic is to use racially loaded attacks “Kenyan, anti-colonialist” “UnAmerican”, etc. and then accuse liberals of “playing the race card”.

Let’s be clear: If you don’t say racially loaded things, people generally don’t accuse you of being racist.

Conservatives love to say any number of disparaging things about minorities and Obama…but as long as they don’t say “I hate black people” it’s somehow okay.

And, no, I don’t think all Conservatives are racists. I just think that it’s either denial or ignorance to say that you don’t realize the racial nature of the GOP/Teaparty rhetoric these days.
notsofast

mibwilso said:
Conservatives constantly rail about the media, or about being taken “out of context”….or about how they’re misrepresented.

LMAO

barry just recently condemned the press for taking his words out of context about the mosque- “I just said they had a right, I didn’t comment on the wisdom of it.”

LOL
notsofast

mibwilso said:
If you watch Fox News, as another example, you see a lot of stories about how Christianity is being attacked or discriminated against.

Ahhhhhhhhh, it is.

Why did Comedy Central censor the Mohammad episode, but proudly play the anti-Christian show?

Why did “Curb Your Enthusiasm” run a show where Jesus was peed on? Why not Mohammad getting pissed on?
mibwilso

Sorry Not-So-Fast—

If you argue that a mosque should not be built on the basis that ALL Muslims are responsible for a terrorist attack, that constitutes Islamophobia.

The only way you can argue that building a mosque near Ground Zero is wrong is by using the logic that Islam as a whole religion is somehow responsible for 9/11.

Let’ be clear. TERRORISTS are responsible for 9/11. Not all of Islam.

Blaming all of Islam for 9/11 would be the same as blaming ALL Christians for an abortion clinic bombing. Both would be WRONG.

Terrorism is the act of extremists.
notsofast

mibwilso said:
Let’s be clear: If you don’t say racially loaded things, people generally don’t accuse you of being racist.

Who said “they will tell ya he doesn’t look like the guys on the dollar bills?”

Who compared the people at town hall meetings to Nazis?

Who said if you are for Prop 8, you are homophobic?

Who said GB’s 8/28 meeting was a bunch of racists?

Who said if you are against the Mosque, you are Islamophobic?

I rest my case.
notsofast

mibwilso said:
If you argue that a mosque should not be built on the basis that ALL Muslims are responsible for a terrorist attack, that constitutes Islamophobia.

LOL

Where did I say that?

Strawman strikes again!
mibwilso

The problem with Christianity in the US today is that they have made themselves inseparable from the Republican party.

Liberals are called “anti-Christian” whenever they attack Republicans on policy issues…but the two are not the same.

Just as Republicans should not be called racists for disagreeing with Obama on policy.
notsofast

mibwilso said:
The only way you can argue that building a mosque near Ground Zero is wrong is by using the logic that Islam as a whole religion is somehow responsible for 9/11.

Here we go folks! A lib is telling you what your arguments and thoughts can be because he knows better than you!

Typical!
notsofast

mibwilso said:
The problem with Christianity

Thank you for admitting your bias against Christianity. That’s the first step!
mibwilso

otsofast says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:42 pm (Quote)

Where did I say that?

Strawman strikes again!

=———

If you didn’t say that, then what exactly do you mean? What other basis would you have for denying a mosque the right to build there??

If the whole group is not responsible for the attacks, there should be no problem. Sensitivity or not.
mibwilso

What do you mean, Not-so-Fast?? Answer my question.

If you don’t think all of Islam is responsible for 9/11, then what exactly is your basis for opposing the mosque??
mibwilso

I love how Not-so-Fast insists that conservatives don’t play the victim card…..and then proceeds to rattle off all the ways that I, and the media, and everyone else is biased against conservatives, Christians, etc.

Just an observation.
mibwilso

And, yes, Not-So-Fast…..Of course I am biased against conservatives…BECAUSE I”M NOT CONSERVATIVE!. Idiot.
SpineCrusher

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Bernie Goldberg’s analysis goes beyond Obama’s “Truther” friend. Rauf is nothing more than an Islamic Community Organizer. Look where that got us when the US elected a Community Organizer as President.

You meant to say president of the Harvard law review, 3 term state senator for Illinois and Senator Obama, right?

You wouldn’t degrade the dialog with hamhanded half truths now would you?
SpineCrusher

notsofast said:
Wrong! Who said “they will tell ya he doesn’t look like the guys on the dollar bills?” Who compared the people at town hall meetings to Nazis? Who said if you are for Prop 8, you are homophobic? Who said GB’s 8/28 meeting was a bunch of racists? Who said if you are against the Mosque, you are Islamophobic? Libs, libs, libs!

That’s not true at all, I know staunch conservatives who believe all the things you’ve quoted above.

The problem is you’re trying to paint everything as a left vs right issue. There are many more of us in the center then there are of the extremists on the left or right.
Alz

roxsteady said:
RIGHT TO

roxsteady said:
Actually, Keith Olbermann pointed out last night that there was a Mosque in the North Tower of the World Trade Center and a Prayer Area in the South Tower on the 106th floor. That one was set up for Muslims who worked at the Windows on The World Restaurant. Did any of you know that? I walked through the North Tower ever day for several years and even I didn’t know that. Just one more thing you won’t hear from fox news. They either don’t know or don’t care. I wonder why the rest of the media has ignored this?

They ignore it because it’s not important. That prayer room wasn’t a stake in the ground. This grand mosque IS a stake in the ground. Islam has a history of building mosques in places they conquor.

The Spanish had the reconquistadors for a reason. It was to take back their land from the Muslims.

The Marine song with the words (like) “…on the shores of Tripoli…” was from one of the Barbary Coast wars – against Muslims.

The world has been fighting Muslins for hundreds of years. People need to wake up.

Where are the so-called moderate Muslims? How come they don’t drown out the extremists???
joeshmoe

sarainitaly said:
Like I said last night, I don’t get why Liberals defend Muslims as fiercely as they do, considering their views on women, homosexuals and their lack of tolerance towards other religions.

Liberals constantly attack Conservatives, flinging accusations in all of those areas, yet, they defend Muslims….

Because hate just fosters more hate. Think about it, we burn the Quran, they burn the Bible, and it just escalates from there, until you have another war. When does it end? Just like the Palestinian, Israel wars that have been going on for about a thousand years. Or the Crusades, and are you going to tell me that the Christians didn’t build a ‘Victory Church?’

You have to allow them to build their Mosque, because what made this nation great is the religious freedom that we all enjoy. If you deny them that right, then you are shredding the constitution, and we are no better than them.

You also have to make a distinction between the peaceful Muslims who live peacefully in NYC, and the ignorant and repressed people still living under tyrannical regimes. Many Muslims came to America to seek a better life, much like many of the colonists that escaped persecution in Europe. Think about it you have Kings and theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East.

And Seriously when was the last time any liberal ever said ‘no Church here.’
sarainitaly

mibwilso says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:32 pm

And conservatives politicians constantly use rhetoric about how “their” country is being “taken away from them”.

You mean like these:

You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America
by Howard Dean

Take Back Our Country
by ELSIE FOX
July 20, 2006

An Open Letter to America: It’s Time to Take Back Our Country
by John & Elaine Mellencamp

Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future
by James Carville

Take Back Our Country
by Donna Middlehurst
Act Blue

http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/big-easy-beatdown.html
sarainitaly

joeshmoe said:
You have to allow them to build their Mosque, because what made this nation great is the religious freedom that we all enjoy. If you deny them that right, then you are shredding the constitution, and we are no better than them.

I am not just talking about the mosque, I’m talking about in general. Like burning the quran – liberals burn bibles and flags all the time, it’s all over the internet. But that Pastor certainly didn’t have the same support from liberals, did he?

As for the mosque, I don’t think anyone is out of line asking that the Imam not build it there, but move it a few blocks away. No one has denied their right to build it – but people have the right to ask him to move it. If he is truly about mending fences, building bridges, and teaching tolerance, etc. then he wouldn’t be so opposed to moving it. And it would go a far way in showing he is sensitive to those who are upset about it, and that he means it when he says he wants to mend fences.
libra blue

The 911 Truther “business” is at least as important as the Birther crap which CNN reports on ad nauseam.

I will be interested to see where the report on this “relationship” goes. Funny that Rauf never mentioned it in any of his interviews, especially when Khan called 911 an “inside job” and Rauf told “60 Minutes” that the U.S. was an “accessory” to 911. It is not too difficult to see the relationship in that.

For the record, Anderson didn’t say a word about it last night, but he is continuing to report on non stories like Sainz and the NY Jets and Craigslist’s adult section.
joeshmoe

sarainitaly said:
I am not just talking about the mosque, I’m talking about in general. Like burning the quran – liberals burn bibles and flags all the time, it’s all over the internet. But that Pastor certainly didn’t have the same support from liberals, did he?

As for the mosque, I don’t think anyone is out of line asking that the Imam not build it there, but move it a few blocks away. No one has denied their right to build it – but people have the right to ask him to move it. If he is truly about mending fences, building bridges, and teaching tolerance, etc. then he wouldn’t be so opposed to moving it. And it would go a far way in showing he is sensitive to those who are upset about it, and that he means it when he says he wants to mend fences.

People are fighting the building of Mosques all over the country, from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, and really if you say they can’t build there, then you are implicitly saying that you blame 9/11 on all Muslims, when it was just some assholes. They want to build it there, because they live there, I mean its an old Burlington Coat Factory, who cares? If it was just the location, the time to object would be when they were getting the permits, but no one cared then. Now you want to him to move it because some people might get offended, after all its replacing an abandoned building next to a strip club, how hallowed can that ground be?
What ever happened to conservatives defense of religious freedom, and private property?

The Pastor was just full of hate. It is hard to compare building a community center to burning someone’s holy book, but I don’t think that liberals stopped him from burning it, it was the top general in Afghanistan, hardly a liberal, who was the most outspoken about the burning.
VRWC Destruction Machine

SpineCrusher said:
You meant to say president of the Harvard law review, 3 term state senator for Illinois and Senator Obama, right?

So you think a professional bureaucrat knows what America needs in a leader. You have given me a weak resume.
VRWC Destruction Machine

moriarty70 said:
I agree that the Truther argument is a small item, but they’re pushing it ahead by daring the otehr networks to cover it and give it legs. As for the violent organizations, he’s come out and said that he is against anyone who uses violence to make their point so that’s dealt with.

And if Rauf is just a community organizer, wouldn’t that be the right person to organize his community with a community center? It’s the core part of the job title, he’s not trying to run a country. That just comes across as an unrelated dig.

Rauf supports the Muslim Brotherhood. While the MB does not directly engage in terrorism it supports Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas. He has also refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization and wrote a letter in June 2009 in support of the Iranian government and the 1979 revolution of its founder, Ayatollah Khomeini.

We really don’t need another “moderate” Muslim using his mosque as a recruiting center for Islamic radicals. Rauf says he condemns terrorism, but when it comes down to specifics, he dances around the issue. That’s why he did say US policy was an accessory to he 9/11 crime after 9/11. Note: he said crime and avoids saying it was a terrorist act.

On “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001, Rauf said,

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
bugspot1

Alz says:

The Marine song with the words (like) “…on the shores of Tripoli…” was from one of the Barbary Coast wars – against Muslims.

The world has been fighting Muslins for hundreds of years. People need to wake up.

Where are the so-called moderate Muslims? How come they don’t drown out the extremists???

ACTUALLY – the Marines were sent to Tripoli to to stop the harboring of Pirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

RESOURCE: Directly from Marines.Com
http://www.marines.com/main/index/winning_battles/history/missions/battle_of_derna

In 1805, the United States government refused to continue paying Barbary Coast pirates to refrain from raiding American merchant ships.

When negotiations for a treaty failed, President Thomas Jefferson assembled an expeditionary force of Marines to respond.

and requarding Tripoli,
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797, finally receiving ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Note article 11 –
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Alz

bugspot1 said:
Alz says: The Marine song with the words (like) “…on the shores of Tripoli…” was from one of the Barbary Coast wars – against Muslims. The world has been fighting Muslins for hundreds of years. People need to wake up. Where are the so-called moderate Muslims? How come they don’t drown out the extremists??? ACTUALLY – the Marines were sent to Tripoli to to stop the harboring of Pirates.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War RESOURCE: Directly from Marines.Comhttp://www.marines.com/main/index/winning_battles/history/missions/battle_of_derna In 1805, the United States government refused to continue paying Barbary Coast pirates to refrain from raiding American merchant ships. When negotiations for a treaty failed, President Thomas Jefferson assembled an expeditionary force of Marines to respond. and requarding Tripoli,The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797, finally receiving ratification from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli Note article 11 –Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You left out some important information:

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

“Translation – Miller’s Investigation and Notes”

“The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.”

“In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States’s treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States’s legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller’s notes, “‘the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic’ and ‘Article 11… does not exist at all.”

“After comparing the United States’s version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

“From this, Miller concludes: ‘A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic… yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts…’”

Gee, what language was that? ARABIC. Yes, Muslims, again!

.Please adapt your thinking instead of being stuck on preconcived notions.
Nachi

One intellectual imbecile talking with another intellectual imbecile.
Morgan

mibwilso said:>The only way you can argue that building a mosque near Ground Zero is wrong is by using the logic that Islam as a whole religion is somehow responsible for 9/11.

The only problem with the most moderate in Islam is that they show too great a tolerance for the jihadists among them. They need a reformation to clean their own house.

Islam is in the position of a family that finds one of its own members was a serial killer. If that family wants to continue living in the same community, as the crimes were committed in, they should keep to a low key.
Alz

Morgan said:
mibwilso said:>The only way you can argue that building a mosque near Ground Zero is wrong is by using the logic that Islam as a whole religion is somehow responsible for 9/11.

That’s silly. There are all sorts of reasons. See Thomas Sowell’s column on it:
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mosque-controversy.html

Morgan said:
mibwilso said:>Islam is in the position of a family that finds one of its own members was a serial killer. If that family wants to continue living in the same community, as the crimes were committed in, they should keep to a low key.

Silly too. Bad analogy. The moderates should drown out the extremists. The issue is the moderates are quiet. Are they afraid of getting their heads cut off too?

See the first two minutes of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE
bugspot1

Alz said:
“From this, Miller concludes: ‘A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic… yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts…’”

Gee, what language was that? ARABIC. Yes, Muslims, again!

.Please adapt your thinking instead of being stuck on preconcived notions.

No preconceived notions I love to learn –

1) you stated that the Marines song to the shores of tripoli means we were fighting muslims, but we were fighting PIRATES – you did not adress that

2)to quote you –
.Please adapt your thinking instead of being stuck on preconcived notions

you quote
The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.

follow the links and you will find – does not exist at all.”[15]
that [15] link brings you to the Yale law school
the copied part from you states
“The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty,

TRANSLATION has been found faulty – whether or not the ARABIC version included this part, but back up in the same page to

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”[19] Article 11 has also been cited by 21st-century church/state separatists as one of several documents — including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence — that demonstrated, according to author Brooke Allen, that the Founding Fathers “… were not religious men”.[20]

The Senate’s ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.[20]

the argument is whether article 111 is in the arabic version, but

But Hurgronje’s discovery is irrelevant. There is no longer any doubt that the English version of the treaty
transmitted to the United States did contain the “no Christian nation” language. Article 11 appeared intact in
newspapers of the day as well as in volumes of treaties and proceedings of Congress published later, including theSession Laws of the Fifth Congress, published in 1797, and in a 1799 volume titled The Laws of the United States. In1832 Article 11 appeared in the treaty when it was reprinted in Documents, Legislative and Executive, of theCongress of the United States 1789-1815, Volume II – a tome that can still be examined today in the Library ofCongress’ main reading room.

In the Senate, the treaty barely caused a ripple. According to The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the UnitedStates Senate, the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and copies were printed for the senators. Nodiscussion or argument about the document was recorded, but the vote in favor was unanimous.

As Borden notes, “What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is…its ready acceptance by the government. Not a word of protest was raised against Article 11 in 1797….Whatever their personal feelings on the question of religious equality for non-Christians in particular states, all concurred that Article 11 comported with the principles of the Constitution.”

Furthermore, in Hunter Miller’s definitive 1931 work on treaties from this period, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, he notes that “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate….it is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery. Article 11 soon took on a life of its own. Years after the treaty was ratified, references to it began popping up in speeches, article and court rulings. Borden notes that “Article 11 had been cited hundreds of times in numerous court cases and in political debates whenever the issue of church-state relations arose….Jews frequently referred to the article in discussions of a much-debated question, whether or not the United States was a Christian nation.”
Borden also reports that in 1899 American diplomat Oscar S. Straus translated Article 11 into Turkish and presented it to the sultan of the Ottoman Empire in an effort to save American lives in the Philippines. The Philippines had recently reverted to American control, and Straus had to find a way to convince the sultan that the United States was not hostile toward Islam so that he would press Sunni Muslims there to accept U.S. rule.

what is in dispute is the translation into english by barlow –
Barlow was a strong advocate of church-state separation – but what was ratified by congressn printed in newspapers of the times, and signed by John Adams (president) is not in dispute

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.au.org/resources/history/old-docs/joel-barlow-and-the-treaty.pdf
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
bugspot1

Alz said:
Alz says:

Morgan said:
mibwilso said:>Islam is in the position of a family that finds one of its own members was a serial killer. If that family wants to continue living in the same community, as the crimes were committed in, they should keep to a low key.

Silly too. Bad analogy. The moderates should drown out the extremists. The issue is the moderates are quiet. Are they afraid of getting their heads cut off too?

Probably – how can we argue that muslims wont speak up against something when they live in a country that does not live in a country that allows them to speak up –
country vs religion
United States – we can speak up here and I can get you several links to imams who live HERE or CANADA who have spoken up
Alz

bugspot1 said:
No preconceived notions I love to learn – 1) you stated that the Marines song to the shores of tripoli means we were fighting muslims, but we were fighting PIRATES – you did not adress that 2)to quote you –.Please adapt your thinking instead of being stuck on preconcived notions you quoteThe translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version. follow the links and you will find – does not exist at all.”[15]that [15] link brings you to the Yale law schoolthe copied part from you states“The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, TRANSLATION has been found faulty – whether or not the ARABIC version included this part, but back up in the same page to Article 11 reads: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”[19] Article 11 has also been cited by 21st-century church/state separatists as one of several documents — including the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence — that demonstrated, according to author Brooke Allen, that the Founding Fathers “… were not religious men”.[20] The Senate’s ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.[20] the argument is whether article 111 is in the arabic version, but But Hurgronje’s discovery is irrelevant. There is no longer any doubt that the English version of the treatytransmitted to the United States did contain the “no Christian nation” language. Article 11 appeared intact innewspapers of the day as well as in volumes of treaties and proceedings of Congress published later, including theSession Laws of the Fifth Congress, published in 1797, and in a 1799 volume titled The Laws of the United States. In1832 Article 11 appeared in the treaty when it was reprinted in Documents, Legislative and Executive, of theCongress of the United States 1789-1815, Volume II – a tome that can still be examined today in the Library ofCongress’ main reading room. In the Senate, the treaty barely caused a ripple. According to The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the UnitedStates Senate, the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and copies were printed for the senators. Nodiscussion or argument about the document was recorded, but the vote in favor was unanimous. As Borden notes, “What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is…its ready acceptance by the government. Not a word of protest was raised against Article 11 in 1797….Whatever their personal feelings on the question of religious equality for non-Christians in particular states, all concurred that Article 11 comported with the principles of the Constitution.” Furthermore, in Hunter Miller’s definitive 1931 work on treaties from this period, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, he notes that “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate….it is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery. Article 11 soon took on a life of its own. Years after the treaty was ratified, references to it began popping up in speeches, article and court rulings. Borden notes that “Article 11 had been cited hundreds of times in numerous court cases and in political debates whenever the issue of church-state relations arose….Jews frequently referred to the article in discussions of a much-debated question, whether or not the United States was a Christian nation.”Borden also reports that in 1899 American diplomat Oscar S. Straus translated Article 11 into Turkish and presented it to the sultan of the Ottoman Empire in an effort to save American lives in the Philippines. The Philippines had recently reverted to American control, and Straus had to find a way to convince the sultan that the United States was not hostile toward Islam so that he would press Sunni Muslims there to accept U.S. rule. what is in dispute is the translation into english by barlow –Barlow was a strong advocate of church-state separation – but what was ratified by congressn printed in newspapers of the times, and signed by John Adams (president) is not in dispute As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. http://www.au.org/resources/history/old-docs/joel-barlow-and-the-treaty.pdf http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Duh, the pirates were Muslims. Just do the research.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=barbary+wars+muslims&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=9085ebf0eb5276e9

As for the country not being Christian, that is obviously false. That Tripoli document has been cited by liberals over and over, but only the ARABIC version has it.

Just do the reserach.

“Separation of Church and State” is a concept that has been utterly twisted by the goofy liberals.

Separation of Church and State is about keeping the Federal Government from forming an official religion (ala the Church of England). It is NOT about keeping religion out of public life. The colonies would not sign on to the US without that protection. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, something like nine of the thirteen colonies HAD official religions so the notion that religion is “separated” from public life is silly, wrong and misleading.

This is why the US Constitution doesn’t mention God. It’s on purpose.

It’s so the States can do as the please without Federal control. This is why the US Constitution does not have God in it, but EVERY SINGLE State Constitution DOES mention God. Liberals like to say that the US Constitution doesn’t mention God as proof of their argument, but as people are finding out, it’s just another liberal lie.

As John Adams said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

As I pointed out, the Liberals have been building a wall of lies for many, many decades. The truth is the truth: seek it.
Alz

bugspot1 said:
and I can get you several links to imams who live HERE or CANADA who have spoken up

NOT ENOUGH. The rank and file must rise up. Those Imans are as good as dead if they travel to certain Muslim countries.

When 9/11 happened, there were vidoes of Muslims dancing in the streets.

Many Muslims won’t even recognize Israel and some Muslims want Israel DESTROYED.

Where are the Muslims in the US protesting how women and gays are treated???? They MUST conform to our laws. That’s the deal.

Quit trying to make excuses and quit being blind to all of the data in front of you. Good night.
bugspot1

Alz said:
Alz says:

As for the country not being Christian, that is obviously false. That Tripoli document has been cited by liberals over and over, but only the ARABIC version has it.

Just do the reserach.

“Separation of Church and State” is a concept that has been utterly twisted by the goofy liberals.

As John Adams said:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

As I pointed out, the Liberals have been building a wall of lies for many, many decades. The truth is the truth: seek it.

I did and sent you links but you did not read

“What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is…its ready acceptance by the government.

I am agreeing that John Adams stated

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

but he also signed a treaty which included article 11 –

once again –

.it is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery.

The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.

Barlow was a strong advocate of church-state separation – but what was ratified by congress printed in newspapers of the times, and signed by John Adams (president) is not in dispute

Barlows translation is your problem – except – arabic did not contain – English translation by Barlow
which INCLUDED article 11 was read to congress, printed in newspapers and signed by your QUOTED JOHN ADAMS

the arguments are that the ARABIC version did not include this
but newspapers, congress and yes John Adams read and signed the version which included this

Barlow may have slid it in with noone knowing – but it is NOT IN DISPUTE
it was written in newspapers and read to Congress

“Just do the reserach.”
bugspot1

Alz said:
Alz says:

As for the country not being Christian, that is obviously false. That Tripoli document has been cited by liberals over and over, but only the ARABIC version has it.

DUH – I did the research – only the ARABIC version does NOT have it

if you like I can see if I can find a copy of the Philadelphia Gazette
but read the full document, I am presently in need of cash and I am sure a copy from this period would be expensive

http://www.au.org/resources/history/old-docs/joel-barlow-and-the-treaty.pdf
bugspot1

Alz said:
Alz says:

NOT ENOUGH. The rank and file must rise up. Those Imans are as good as dead if they travel to certain Muslim countries.

wow not sure why imams dying is not good enough for you – the rank and file????

Alz said:
When 9/11 happened, there were vidoes of Muslims dancing in the streets.

When 9/11 happened, Iranians held a candlelight vigil in the streets, and the Iranian Government allowed us to fly over their country to bomb Afganistan

Alz said:
Many Muslims won’t even recognize Israel and some Muslims want Israel DESTROYED.

Many americans hate blacks, and some want to kill them

Alz said:
Where are the Muslims in the US protesting how women and gays are treated???? They MUST conform to our laws. That’s the deal.

I have never seen Christians PROTESTING how women and gays are treated – if we are a Christian nation – Why are Gay Rights issues voted down and the equal rights amendment not passed to this day
(era – women – to this day not passed)

Alz said:
Quit trying to make excuses and quit being blind to all of the data in front of you. Good night

I have not EVER made excuses – I have sat here for hours giving you endless information available that I read over and over again and backed it up with several sources so I was not reading anything into this

I do not care if you are right, but your taking 1 line from a page

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty

is stating that BARLOW translated an ARABIC document and ADDED article 11 to the treaty

although the ARABIC version did not include, CONGRESS and the newspapers at the time di niclude
ARTICLE 11

do the research
bugspot1

ALZ says:

Alz said:
As I pointed out, the Liberals have been building a wall of lies for many, many decades. The truth is the truth: seek it.

your bias is showing – I am not liberal – I took your statement and spent nearly 3 hours doing research – I was stopped at your response and thought you might be correct until I clicked on the [15], and then did some more research.
Alz

bugspot1 said:
I did and sent you links but you did not read “What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is…its ready acceptance by the government. I am agreeing that John Adams stated “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” but he also signed a treaty which included article 11 – once again – .it is the English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.” It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent. Barlow was a strong advocate of church-state separation – but what was ratified by congress printed in newspapers of the times, and signed by John Adams (president) is not in dispute Barlows translation is your problem – except – arabic did not contain – English translation by Barlowwhich INCLUDED article 11 was read to congress, printed in newspapers and signed by your QUOTED JOHN ADAMS the arguments are that the ARABIC version did not include thisbut newspapers, congress and yes John Adams read and signed the version which included this Barlow may have slid it in with noone knowing – but it is NOT IN DISPUTEit was written in newspapers and read to Congress “Just do the reserach.”

Read the section “Translation and Article 11″.

The conclusion is that whole Article 11 is in doubt. Apparently, this treatyt didn’t end up like a nice word procressor docutmnent (for obvious reasons), but that it included letters. Article 11 has been called in question and we don’t know what versions of the document it is in.

Regardless, we have one document that is flawed with the exact section cited as proof about the US’s religious nature and Liberals use it as absolute prrof while ignoring the massive evidence that the country WAS founded on Christian principles.

You may find this handy: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1995&month=04

Christian religion was so ingrained into society that it wasn’t really articulated like we don’t talk about the oxygen that we so depend on.
Alz

bugspot1 said:
ALZ says: your bias is showing – I am not liberal – I took your statement and spent nearly 3 hours doing research – I was stopped at your response and thought you might be correct until I clicked on the [15], and then did some more research.

What I said isn’t biased. When you read about this stuff, you find that the liberal version is inconsistent with history. That’s not bias on my part.
Alz

bugspot1 said:
DUH – I did the research – only the ARABIC version does NOT have it if you like I can see if I can find a copy of the Philadelphia Gazettebut read the full document, I am presently in need of cash and I am sure a copy from this period would be expensive http://www.au.org/resources/history/old-docs/joel-barlow-and-the-treaty.pdf

This Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a VERY biased source. It’s like watching Fahrenheit 911. We ALL know that Moore never sought to accurately describe what happened.

Article 11 is an unreliable blip in a sea of information that supports the notion that the US is a Christian nation.
bugspot1

Alz says:

Alz said:
What I said isn’t biased. When you read about this stuff, you find that the liberal version is inconsistent with history. That’s not bias on my part.

Erher is not LIBERAL version
look here for a copy of the treaty
tp://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=24

http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm

Alz said:
This Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a VERY biased source. It’s like watching Fahrenheit 911. We ALL know that Moore never sought to accurately describe what happened.

Article 11 is an unreliable blip in a sea of information that supports the notion that the US is a Christian nation.

you took 1 link of the many I sent you and state they are biased
I have now sent you links to the actual document

I was not arguing we are/are not a christian nation,
only we were fighting pirates, and we made a treaty with Muslims
you stated the marine hymn was proof we have always been at war with Muslims

ht

Alz said:
The conclusion is that whole Article 11 is in doubt. Apparently, this treatyt didn’t end up like a nice word procressor docutmnent (for obvious reasons), but that it included letters. Article 11 has been called in question and we don’t know what versions of the document it is in.

Not true
the conclusion is that the Arabic version did not include Article 11, but that the translator (Barlow) who was for separation of church and state, added it to the version that was read to congress, signed by John Adams, and printed in newspapers

but
If you want to argue the whole christian nation thing, I can show you statements from politicians, newspaper articles etc.
I’ll eve start from your point – they were all Christians, they want Americans to be religious
that is correct, but what they more concerned with was that America be religious
with statements like I would rather the children be Mohammedan (muslim) than no religion at all
or that thy respected the muslim religion because like the bible it had a carrot/stick way of leading people to do the right thing

what they seemd to believe was that america needed a religion to follow or it would fail
from your John Adams quote
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

religious people are moral